
































THE 

COTTON QUESTION. 


An inquiry into the standing and prospects 
of the Cotton States of America, in 
comparison with the Production 
of Cotton in the rest of the 
World, especially 
I ndia. 


PRESENTED BY THE 

Southern Fertilizing Co., 

RICHMOND, VA. 











Range of Inquiry. 


1. Cotton before the war. 

2. What was accomplished by the “Cotton Supply Associ¬ 

ation of Manchester, England,” in opening up new 
fields and stimulating old ones. 

3. The Cotton demand; its bearings both in respect of 

America and India. 

4. The Cotton manufacture, especially in the South. 

5. Cotton production in the South, and what is needed to 

to make it profitable. 



>URC£ UNKNOWN 


9 

Note.—I n arranging the material of the following pages resort has been had, in all 


cases, to the most authentic sources of information. Our object will have been gained if 
what we have urged has the effect to cheer up our people in the Cotton country, and enable 
them to reap a reward of comfort, instead of the bitter despondency that has too often, of 
late years, followed the close of the year’s work. 








WM. H PALMER, President. 
JOHN ENDERS, Vice President. 
JOHN OPT, Secretary. 



W. H. TA YLOR, Chemist, 

State Chemist and Assayer. 
W. H G ILHAM, Ass’t Secy. 


The Southern Fertilizing Company, 


RICHMOND, Va., January 25, i8y6. 

To Our Friends : 


In the document we submitted last winter, for the better 
information of our people, in connection with the Cotton 
crop, we gave, very fully, the figures showing its production 
and movement throughout the world. We propose now to 
present some observations on the matter in another aspect, 
namely, the standing and prospects of our own Cotton 
country in comparison with the production at . large, and in 
particular of India. 

We will be pardoned for indulging here in a few words 
referring to the early history of this staple. Agriculture can 
hardly be much older than the art of spinning and weaving, 
for men had to be clad as well as fed. Outside of the Scrip¬ 
tures, our knowledge of very early times is extremely lim¬ 
ited, and the Scriptures say nothing of Cotton. And still 
we do not doubt that it was used from the beginning in the 
regions where it was indigenous in any abundance; indeed, 
Herodotus (450 B. C.) described the Cotton fabrics of India 
much as we find them now, the very perfection of human in¬ 
genuity. In Palestine, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy and Spain, 
wool was mainly used; in the countries north of these, 
hemp ; in Egypt, flax ; and in China, silk. Among the culti¬ 
vated peoples along the Mediterranean quite as great value 
was attached to the exquisite muslins of India as the fine 
linen of Egypt. Considering the stress laid upon the Cotton 
goods of India by the generals of Alexander, it is highly 
probable that the trade in these goods with the people of the 
west really dates from this expedition of that great soldier 
(325 B. C). The Cotton plant is indigenous to China, Cen- 


4 


tral Africa and America. If so in other portions of the world, 
history has failed to attest the fact with certainty. Although 
it was a garden plant in China for hundreds of years, still 
no attempt to utilize it was made until the thirteenth century. 
The growth of the plant spread westward with the move¬ 
ments of the Saracens; in fact, there is little doubt but that 
the manufacture of the article was understood and practiced 
in Arabia perhaps before the Christian era. As one or the 
other of the countries of Europe got the ascendancy in the 
trade of the East Indies, the manufactured article found its 
way throughout all the nations of Christendom. 

Our interest in Cotton begins when Eli Whitney in¬ 
vented the Cotton Gin. This memorable event occurred in 
the year 1793, in Georgia, on the plantation of Gen’l Greene. 
It is said to have come about in this, wise: Mr. Whitney (a 
native of Massachusetts) was employed as a tutor in the 
family of Gen’l Greene. One day, the General, in conver¬ 
sation with his wife, observed what a future there would be 
for Cotton if some contrivance could be arranged by which 
the lint might be rapidly separated from the seed, when Mrs. 
Greene rejoined that if anybody could make such a ma¬ 
chine she was sure it was Mr. Whitney. He had, from time to 
time, constructed for her ingenious little household con¬ 
veniences. Thus encouraged, he set about the work, and 
with no better aid than the rude tools of the neighboring 
smith’s shop, produced the Cotton Gin. Previous to that 
time the seeds were picked out by hand; hence the impossi¬ 
bility of any material production beyond the immediate wants 
of those who grew it. 

The cheapness of Cotton, as compared with all other 
material used for clothing, has brought it into universal con¬ 
sumption; and so no question affecting the comfort of the 
world can be more vital than that of the adequate and regular 
supply of this staple. Besides, without clothing there can 
be no civilization. 



i.—Cotton before the War. 


The use of Cotton, as far as the wants of Europe and the peoples of the 
west in general were concerned, made but limited headway before the in¬ 
vention of the Cotton Gin by Whitney. When Cotton began to find its 
way to England from India, both raw and in fabrics, the woolen manufactu¬ 
rers raised such an opposition to it that Parliament actually passed laws 
prohibiting the use of calico, either as clothing or furniture, under a penalty 
■of £200 on the buyer and seller. It, however, continued to be used; the 
•consumption growing gradually from year to year. The only gin, or ma¬ 
chine for separating the seed, employed prior to Whitney’s, was the “Chur- 
‘Jca” of India. Nothing could be ruder or more unsatisfactory, at least in 
our eyes. Two uprights, twenty inches long, fastened into a stout piece of 
wood, supported two rollers, eleven inches wide; the lower one of wood, 
two and one-eighth inches in diameter, and the upper one of iron, three- 
quarters of an inch in diameter. The lower roller was worked by the right 
hand (the handle being like that on common well-gear), and the seed Cot¬ 
ton fed in with the left. Attached to the other end of the upper roller was 
a wheel, two feet four inches in diameter, which was turned by an assistant 
with his right hand, the left being used to remove the Cotton from the roll¬ 
ers as it came through. The staple was not injured, but the day’s work sel¬ 
dom went beyond from twenty to thirty pounds. 

The inventive genius of Arkwright, Hargreaves, Crompton, and oth¬ 
ers, had been busy for some years, perfecting machinery to spin and weave 
Cotton. In 1782, James Watt adapted his steam engine to the working of 
machinery other than the pumping out of mines. Every needed prelimi¬ 
nary indeed to Whitney’s invention appeared to be provided. No region in 
the world, in point of climate, was better suited to the growth of this crop 
than the southern portion of this country; besides, it had [this other advan¬ 
tage, great convenience to the European markets. This region was soon 
•overspread with persons who were either holders of negro slaves, or willing 
to use them. Aside from the efforts of the English and Dutch, in bringing 
•slaves to this country, the merchants of New England were largely engaged 
in the business, and in this trade they were protected by constitutional en¬ 
actment until the year 1808. As the cost of this property in Africa was 
insignificant, the profits realized were very handsome, despite the loss by 
death resulting from over-crowded ships, and undoubtedly made no incon-. 


6 


siderable figure in laying the foundation of New England prosperity.* The 
soil in the Cotton region was virgin and very fertile, and nothing opened to 
the people a fairer prospect of profit than the utilization of their slave la¬ 
bor in the growth of Cotton. Added to the convenience of location was the 
other advantage of superiority of staple as compared with the East Indian 
product. 

The whole crop of this country in 1791 was 2 000,000 pounds; of 1792, 
3,000,000. Whitney’s gin coming into use in 1793, the crop began to ad¬ 
vance rapidly in proportions. In 1796 it reached 10,000,000 pounds; in 
1800, 35,000,000 pounds; in 1810,85,000,000 pounds; in 1820,160,000,000 
pounds; in 1830, 350,000,000 pounds; in 1840, 834,000,000 pounds; in 
1850, 958,000,000 pounds; and in 1860, 2,241,000,000 pounds!—And then 
the war came. 

Through the efforts of English philanthropists, mainly of Wilberforce, the 
slave trade was finally abolished. All shipments then directly from Africa had 
to be made clandestinely; and the supplies from this source, added to the 
natural increase of those already in the Cotton country, proved so inadequate 
to provide the raw material demanded by the growing consumption of Cot¬ 
ton goods in this country and Europe, that regions beyond had to be drawn 
upon for labor. The price of good field hands accordingly advanced to $1,000 
and upwards, when Virginia, and other slave States north of the Cotton re¬ 
gion, parted with a portion of their wealth in this shape to supply the defi¬ 
ciency. So urgent, indeed, had the question of labor become, immediately 
prior to the war, that this admission was freely made: “ It must be consid¬ 
ered that the maximum producing power of the present* slave population 


*See “Slavery” Thornton, p. 21, et seq. — It appears that a citizen of Boston started 
the slave trade in this country, and it occurred in the year 1645 ; and his example was fol¬ 
lowed by others in his section, especially Rhode Island. In the Custom House records of 
Charleston, S. C. (we know not what was done at the other Southern ports), are found the 
entries of 202 cargoes of negro slaves, numbering altogether 39,075, during the four years 
from 1804 to 1807 inclusive. Of this number, 3,914 were owned by persons in Bristol, R. 
I.; 3488 by Newport; 556 by Providence, and 280 by Warren; 200 by Boston; 250 by 
Hartford, and 200 hy Philadelphia. By citizens of the late slaveholding States, 3,4434 
and by British owners, 19,649. The first cargo of slaves brought to Virginia was by the 
Dutch in 1670; Amsterdam, in her corporate capacity, shared in the slave traffic. We have 
historical data showing that Queen Elizabeth was a joint partner in John Hawkins’s Ame¬ 
rican slave operations; and that the business enjoyed the patronage of the Stuarts and 
Queen Anne. But Great Britain never does things by halves; hence her achievements in 
the slave trade went beyond those of any other nation in the world. From the year 1700 
to 1786, her merchants brought into Jamaica alone 610,000. As nearly as can be ascer¬ 
tained, her trade in slaves, to all points, embraced over 3,000,000, delivered; how many 
perished in the “middle passage” of course can never be known. At #100. each, the gross 
sum realized would be $300,000,000! j 







has been attained, while consumption is everywhere stimulated to the ut¬ 
most, and constantly extending.”— (Neill Bros. Dec. 1859.) 

The following table (Nourse ; Ott-Trumpler) will show the consump¬ 
tion of America and Europe in 1859-60 and 1860-61: 



1859-60. 

i86o-’6i. 

American. 

E. Indian. 

Other 

Growths. 

American. 

E. Indian. 

Other 

Growths. 

American consumption, bales .... 

. English “ “ . 

Continental “ “ . 

Total consumption, . 

978,043 

2,135,0°° 

1,272,000 



843,740 

2,170,000 

1,275,000 



207,000 

385,000 

2 1 S, OOO 

55 , 00 ° 

249,000 

425,000 

193,000 

78,000 

4 , 385, 0 43 

592,000 

273, OOO 1 

4,286,740 

674,000 

271,000 


Or, 5,350,043 bales in 1859-60, and 5,231,740 bales in 1860-61. Our Cot¬ 
ton pamphlet of last winter shows in detail (page 7) American production, 
consumption, exports, &c., since 1826. We are able to see bow immensely 
Cotton displaced all other material used in the clothing of mankind, when 
we compare, say English consumption in 1786 with that of the Cotton year 
ending in 1860. Mr. McCulloch gives the figures for 1786 as follows: 

From British West Indies. 5,800,000 pounds. 

“ French and Spanish Colonies.. .. 5,500,000 “ 

“ Dutch Colonies. 1,600,000 “ 

“ Portuguese Colonies. 2,000,000 “ 

“ Smyrna and Turkey. 5,000,000 “ 

Total.19,900,000 

Or 45,250 bales, as against 2,560,000 bales in the year 1860. 

A definite idea of the magnitude of what was involved in this interest 
with us, say in 1840, can be gotten from the following figures (De Bow) : 


1. 1,200,000 slaves, at $500 eac h.^$600,000,000 

2. Land, 4,500,000 acres, at $10. 45,000,000 

3. Land in grain, 6,300,000 acres, at $10. 63,000,000 

4. Land in timber, pasture, &c., 14,000,000 acres, at $3 .. 42,000,000 

5. Mules and Horses, 400,000, at $100. 40,000,000 

6. Hogs and Sheep, 4,500,000, at $1. 4,500,000 

7. Cattle, 300,000, at $5. 1,500,000 

8. Ploughs, 500,000, at $2. 1,000,000 

9. Wagons, and other plantation implements, &c...... 1,000,000 


Total 


$798,000,000 


































































» 


X 


8 


From the same source of information we get the following statement, show¬ 
ing the result of the year’s work in 1852, on a well conducted plantation in 
South Carolina: 

Capital invested . $150,152 00 

4 

Income of the farm: 

331,136 lbs. of lint cotton, at 6 cents per lb.. $19,868 16 

Bacon and other provisions . 2,430 00 

Increase of negroes, say 5 per cent., set down as capital at $89,000, 4,495 00 

26,793 16 

Deduct expenses of the farm, including freight and commission . 6,791 48 

Net profits on capital invested. $20,001 68 

Or, something over 13 per cent. The cotton brought 6 cents in Charleston. 
At 8 cents, the profits would have been $26,614.40, or nearly 18 per cent. 

With the world for a customer, our people in the Cotton country were in¬ 
deed prosperous. A simple inspection of the following figures (“ Ruggles's 
Analysis U. S. Census") will exhibit the growth of their wealth in but three 
directions, from 1850 to 1860 : 


STATES. 

1850. 

1860. 

Cash value 
of Farms. 

Cash a t alue 
Farming 
Implements. 

Cash value 
Farm 1 

Stock. 

Cash value 
of Farms. 

Cash value 
Farming 
Implements. 

Cash value 
Farm 
Stock. 

North Carolina. 

$67,891,766 

$3,931,532 

$17,717,647 

$143,301,065 

$5,873,942 

$31,130,805 

South Carolina. 

82,431,684 

4,136,354 

15.060,015 ! 

139,652,508 

6,151,657 

23,934,465 

Georgia. 

95,753,445 

5,894,150 

25,728,416 

157,072,803 

6,844,387 

38,372,734 

Florida . 

6,323,109 

658,795 

2,880,058 

. 16,435,727 

900,609 

5,553,356 

Alabama.. 

64,323,224 

5,125,663 

21,690,112 

175.824,622 

7,433,178 

43,411,711 

Mississippi. 

54.738,634 

5,762,927 

19,403,662 

190,760,367 

8,826,512 

41,891,692 

Louisiana. 

75,814,398 

11,576,938 

11,152,275 

204,789,662 

18,648,225 

24,546,940 

Texas. 

16,550,008 

2,151,704 

10,412,927 

88,101,320 

6,259,452 

42,825,447 

Arkansas.. 

15,265,245 

1,601,296 

6,647,969 

91,649,773 

4,175,326 

22,096,977 

Tennessee. 

97,851,212 

5,360,210 

29,978,016 

271,358,985 

8,465,792 

60,211,425 


War was declared in 1861, and that year must ever stand as the dividing 
line in our career. Slave labor was deemed necessary to the successful pro¬ 
duction of Cotton, and so it is highly probable that the pressure for such 
labor, incident to the increasing demand for the staple, would have occa¬ 
sioned trouble, if there was nothing else to bring it on. If any one will take 
the. pains to examine the “ Secret Debates on the Constitution of the United 
States," he will see that harmony between the sections was then by no 



















































9 


means a normal condition. However, after its adoption, through the influ¬ 
ence mainly of Washington, which did not end with his death, oil and water 
were for the time made to mix. Then and now it would be hard to find two 
peoples much more diverse in sentiment and social features than the North 
and the South. We were good customers to the North, buying much, and 
furnishing raw material in abundance for it to work up. As agricultural 
people we cared for little else; while the North, less favored by nature in 
soil and location, took to trade and manufactures; and, to keep it going, 
such helps as fishing bounties and high protective tariffs were resorted to. 
Of course it would have been comfortable to the South to take advantage of 
the eheap labor of foreign countries in its purchases, especially as these coun¬ 
tries were its largest customers, but, for the sake of the Union, it sub¬ 
mitted to the tariff, and thus gave to build up the North millions that might 
have been kept at home. As time passed, New England’s mind revolted 
against the business of slavery. The movement, however, did not take the 
direction of an expression of sincere regret at the hand she had in it, nor a 
disposition to refund any of the money she made out of it; on the contrary, 
the South only was to blame; and what with violent harangues, newspa¬ 
pers (“ The Liberator ,” for example,) denouncing the Constitution of the 
United States as “ a league with the devil and a covenant with hell;” and 
emissaries sent South to foment discontent among the slaves, we could look 
for no better fruit than a bitterness of feeling tending to blood, and blood 
came of course. In the time to come, when history shall take up and dis¬ 
pose of the case, with even-handed justice, we are willing to stand to the 
record. 


2.—What was accomplished by the “Cotton Supply 
Association of Manchester, England,” in open¬ 
ing up new fields, and stimulating old ones. 

Lancashire began to grow uneasy a few years before the war on the sub¬ 
ject of a supply of Cotton to her factories that could be depended upon, 
from year to year, with absolute confidence. The great convenience of 
America in the matter of location, the fine staple it produced, and its really 
low price, considering quality, as compared with that of all other growths, 
had lulled her to repose, and she had gone on, steadily adding to her spin¬ 
dles, until in 1857 English capital invested in Cotton manufactures reached 
about $300,000,000. It did not require the wisdom of Solomon, looking 
at the manner in which bad blood was being made in America, to under- 




10 


stand what was coming. And if the conflict did come, not only Lanca¬ 
shire, but all England, would be shaken, should this Cotton interest be left 
without adequate supplies of the raw material. The result of the agitation 
was the formation, in 1857, of that justly celebrated organization known as. 
the “Cotton Supply Association of Manchester.” This association at 
once set on foot systematic inquiry in all the countries of the world (the 
United States excepted, of courst) where the cultivation of Cotton might 
likely become, with proper encouragement, a permanent business. To push 
the enterprise with greater vigor, they started a publication in August, 1858,, 
called the “ Cotton Supply Reporter." Nothing could be more vehement 
than the appeals that appeared from month to month in this paper; in¬ 
deed, from the way in which it belabored the government for its tardy 
movements, one would have supposed that Her Majesty, and the whole 
ruling power, in fact, belonged to the geological era. 

The following extract (Dec. 1, 1858) is a mild sample of its rhetoric: 

“ Ten millions sterling— dead loss —and that annually, [America was claimed to be over¬ 
paid that much] ought to be sufficient to rouse English energy, and fix the determination, 
at once in every man knowing the fact, that he will do what in him lies to agitate this great 
question; for it is a question for every householder and purchaser of a single yard of calico. 
It affects all trades—all interests. The palaces of the home trade in this city [Manches¬ 
ter] are built upon Cotton; the stability of those palaces depends upon cheap Cotton-, the 
tens of thousands of this “nation of shop-keepers,” and especially of drapers, live chiefly 
by Cotton; and it is sheer imbecility, year after year, passively to watch the efflux of ten 
millions lost, while we have the means in our hands of improving the condition of our in¬ 
dustrial classes, and of converting this loss into twenty or thirty millions saved. We could, 
obtain Cotton from Africa or India. By doing so, we should save not only our annual ten 
millions, but create markets that would take far more than an equivalent of our manufac¬ 
tures in return. Every year would widen our market. In ten years, we should at least 
have saved one hundred millions —an eighth part of our national debt, instead of paying 
for our folly at the rate of 

ONE HUNDRED MILLIONS IN TEN YEARS! 

This is the Cotton Supply Question! 

One-fifth of ten millions would be sufficient to construct a railroad connecting Bombay 
with the valley of the Berar, which, it is affirmed, will supply Lancashire with all the Cot¬ 
ton she requires, for 2pence per pound, land and sea charges included!” 

Everything, in fact, that could move men was appealed to. The “dead 
loss” Lancashire had been so long sustaining was peculiarly distressing, in¬ 
asmuch as her cotton manufactures had not for years yielded a clear divi¬ 
dend of more than from 25 to 30 per cent, on the capital invested! 

The old men, however, even among the manufacturers, believing in Adam 
Smith, felt sure that the magic law of supply and demand would bring 


11 


all the Cotton they wanted, and were slow to move. They judged the world' 
as the philanthropists did the negro, from their own stand-point, and were- 
as badly mistaken. Nothing daunted, the Association pressed on. It utilized 
the efforts of missionaries, like Livingston, Moffat, Elliot and Wil¬ 
liams ; it waked up the government at last, and gave tone to at least an 
occasional clap of thunder from “ The Times;" it sent to New Orleans for 
Cotton seed by the cargo, and bought Cotton gins in great numbers, which it 
distributed in every country that gave any promise of returns ; it gave most 
especial attention to India, establishing experimental gardens, worked by 
skilful English and Scotch gardeners, sending out experienced Cotton-grow¬ 
ers from the United States, petitioning the Indian government to encourage 
the ryot by making more liberal the land tenure, subscribing liberally to 
build railways to bring the Cotton from the interior to the seaboard, im¬ 
proving the prevailing methods of irrigating the land in dry seasons; every¬ 
thing, in short, that men could do to assure an abundant Cotton supply, let 
America do what she would. The vigor displayed was simply unparalleled 
outside of arms. 

The war came in America, and all too soon, for the Association’s wards 
were only in the first years of their apprenticeship. They lived, besides, in 
countries where oppression was the rule, and liberty the exception, and 
where usage had, through centuries of thraldom, become a law that bound 
them with bands of iron. It required an extraordinary stimulus to break 
such lethargy, and that stimulus came. The blockade of our Southern ports 
was decreed, and this cut off all further supplies from America, unless per¬ 
chance daring captains could be found who, for large pay, would risk’cap¬ 
ture or destruction. Prices began to advance, and shortly moved with 
bounds—“ Middling uplands” that in 1860 sold for 6f pence, brought in 
1861 8-1 pence; in 1862, 171 pence; in 1863, 231 pence; and, in 1864,271 
p enC e.—'‘ Fair Pernams” that sold in 1860 for 81 pence, brought in 1861, 91- 
pence ; in 1862, 181 pence; in 1863, 241 pence; and, in 1864. 28! pence.— 
“ Fair Surats” that reached in 1860 only 5 pence, advanced in 1861 to 61 
pence; in 1862 to 121 pence; in 1863 to 191 pence; and in 1864'to 211 
pence.— (Ellison & Co.) 

The stimulus of these prices did the work, but only partially. Countries 
that before made only a sorry figure in the trade, and some none at all, be¬ 
gan to ship to England heavily. Mexico went from nothing in 1861 to 
25,000,000 pounds in 1864; the British West Indies, that showed but 
485,000 pounds in 1861, ran up to nearly 27,000,000 pounds in 1864; Co¬ 
lombia and Venezuela became quite respectable ; Brazil, that seldom reached 
20 ,000,000 pounds prior to 1862, began to advance, and went to over 
55*000^000 pounds in 1865. Egypt advanced from 41,000,000 pounds in, 
1861 to 177,000,000 pounds in 1865 ; the other countries on the Mediterra- 


12 


s nean did well also, their shipments increasing from less than 600,000 pounds 
in 1861 to over 27,000,000 in 1865. China, that was always a heavy buyer 
from India, to make up her deficiency in production, not only ceased to import 
any, but actually spared to England as much as 86,000,000 pounds in 1864. 
Other countries, minor sources of supply, responded well; their shipments, 
in the aggregate, increased from 9,000,000 pounds in 1861 to nearly 
34,000,000 pounds in 1864. India, above all other countries, showed what the 
“ Cotton Supply Association” had done, considered aside from the stimulus 
of price. Her shipments steadily advanced from 369,000,000 pounds in 
1861 to 615,000,000 pounds in 1866. Taking a general view of the situa¬ 
tion, and we find that Great Britain imported in 1860,1,390,938,752 pounds 
of raw Cotton, of which we furnished 1,115,890,608 pounds, leaving the 
supply from other countries 275,048,144 pounds; or our contribution was 
■over four times as much as the rest of the world 'put together. In 1872 the 
British import was 1,408,837,472 pounds, of which we furnished 625,600,080 
pounds, leaving the supply from other sources 783,237,392 pounds. We 
appear then to have fallen off in the good graces of this excellent customer 
since 1860 nearly fifty per cent.; and other countries have gained two hun¬ 
dred per cent. And this result cannot pass unheeded by us if we are at all 
mindful of our interests. 

The labors of the Association have demonstrated, beyond question, this fact: 
the Southern States of America no longer necessarily hold a monopoly of the 
Cotton crop. It can be grown with success throughout the whole of the zone, 
bounded by the line of 43 degrees North latitude, and 33 degrees South 
latitude. We wish our friends would take the map and accompany us in 
the examination of this zone. It will be found to cover the West Indies, a 
large portion of North and South America; Southern Europe and all of 
Africa explored, Southern Asia from Syria to China, the Indian Archipelego, 
including Northern Australia. To every country, great and small, in this 
zone, the Association lent its aid in seed, gins and instruction. As will be 
■seen, Cotton is now a standard staple crop in India, Brazil, China and 
Egypt. We close with the words of Mr. Secretary Watts, of the “ Cotton 
Hupply Association” : “ It cannot reasonably be expected that in any new 
Cotton-growing country results can be speedily obtained, which, in America, 
have only been secured after many years of patient, continuous effort and 
-•skilful enterprise. With a rare combination of facilities and advantages, 
made available by a degree of skill and enterprise not to be expected every¬ 
where, the American Cotton trade continued through a long series of years 
"to increase in magnitude and importance. The natural advantages, how¬ 
ever, may not be greater than exist elsewhere, and if the American supply 
were hopelessly lost, and it became a necessity to find other sources, would 
the manufacturing industry of Great Britain in that case become extinct? 


13 


Not so, and it has been sufficiently shown that other countries would them 
be able by degrees to meet the emergency. To do this fully, must, of ne¬ 
cessity, be a work of time, but that it could be done has been abundantly 
demonstrated. The little which there had been time to accomplish, prior to- 
the Cotton famine, tended to mitigate that calamity, and to direct attention 
without delay to those parts of the world most likely to afford speedy relief.” ' 


3-—The Cotton demand; its bearings both in respect 
of America and India. 

Cotton must continue to be the money crop of the Southern States. If they- 
could raise a large surplus of grain, the North-west would contest the mar¬ 
ket with them at every step, the rich lands there acting as an offset to the- 
difference in cost of transportation to the seaboard in favor of the South;, 
besides, grain, outside of the hog crop, is their main dependence. If to¬ 
bacco, this is a luxury, and its consumption by no means indefinite ; indeed, 
acreage enough is already under this crop throughout the world to supply 
the demand with reasonable regularity. If live stock, the States west of 
the Mississippi, and the grass country in the region bordering on and north 
of the Ohio, to say nothing of the Middle States, furnish everything that is 
required in that direction. So, Cotton remains, and will remain, the stand- 
by of the States south of Virginia. 

In examining the average prices of American, Brazilian and Indian Cot¬ 
ton in the Liverpool market, during each of the twenty years prior to 1861,. 
we found them to be, in pence, as follows (Ellison & Co.): 


Year. I 

Middling- 

Uplands. 

Fair 

Pernain. 

Fair 

Surat. 

II 

Year. 

! 

Middling- 

Uplands. 

Fair 

Pernam. 

Fair 

Surat. 

Year. 

Middling 1 

Uplands. 

Fair 

Pernain. 

Fair 

Surat. 

Year. 

Middling 

Uplands. 

Fair 

Pernam. 

Fair 

Surat. | 

1841 

61 

H 

4t 

1846 

4 i 

6 f 

3i 

1851 

5 2 

71 

4i 

i8 5 6 

6 & 

7 

41 

1842 

5* 

7i , 

4 

00 

61 

7t 

4i 

1852 

5x6 

6 f 

4i 

1857 

71 

81 

5i 

1843 

4f 

H 

3* 

1848 

4l 

5t 

3i 

1853 

5f 

61 

4l 

1858 

61 

H 

5! 

1844 

4f 

61 

3t 

1849 

5l 

51 

31 

Tt* 

to 

00 

5t 

61 

3f 

1859 

61 

81 

5 

1845 

4i 

6 

3l 

1850 

7 

7l 

5i 

1855 

5f 

61 

4 

i 860 

61 

8A 

5 


This question occurred to us as the result of this examination : Could 
means be devised by which we might again lay down Cotton in Liverpool, 
with profit, at something like these prices; and thus command the market 


i 










































\ 


14 




against the world? To get the best counsel possible on the subject, we 
sought the good offices of Mr. B. F. Nourse (of Nourse, Dabney & Co., Bos¬ 
ton). As an authority in connection with Cotton, it is only necessary to say 
that he holds rank with' the eminent Ott-Trumpler, of Zurich. Mr. 

4 

Nourse’s reply to our inquiry is as follows: 

“ Your question is, “ Have the improvements wrought in India production been such as 
!to enable her to hold her present position, with American Cotton at 4 1 / 2 to 6 pence per 
pound in Liverpool?” 

“ Eventually the answer will be determined by profit and loss. So long as Cotton can 
be produced in India with greater profit in average years than other great articles of export, 
the production of Cotton will be continued and increased, and, in nearly its present rela¬ 
tive quantity; it would probably be continued, with gradual decline, for some years after 
other productions had been found to be more profitable, because of the losses and difficul¬ 
ties attending a change in the product of the labor of a numerous people. However low 
the price, and small the pay for labor, the millions of ryots must work at something to 
earn the cost of their simple living. The abnormal price for Cotton, caused by our war, 
•forced an extension of the production of commercial Cotton (as distinguished from the 
great and unknown quantity raised for home use from the earliest historic times) in India, 
such as would have required decades, if not centuries, under the slow progress while our 
country supplied seven-eighths of all the Cotton fibre consumed by the commercial world. 
Yet the unceasing efforts of the “Manchester Cotton Supply Association,” aided by the 
British and Indian governments, had made real, though slight progress in improving the 
■quality, and increasing the quantity of exportable Indian Cotton before our war. It was 
■mainly due to those efforts that India was in a condition to act upon and profit by that con- 
•tingency instantly, and in so short a time as five years to increase the export to Europe 
from an average of about 350,000 bales per annum to 1,940,000 bales in a single year. 
Yet this would have been impossible but for the great works of internal improvement in 
India, begun some years before, and in good progress in i860: railways for transportation 
(increasing from 25 miles in 1856 to 6,250 miles in 1874),* and canals for irrigation. It is 
not easy to discover what return could have been made to the ryot in upper Bombay for 
’the bale of Cotton brought hundreds of miles in a bullock cart, or in a hide boat, to the 
port, thence shipped by sail vessel to London, and then sold for 3 or 3^ pence per pound, 
as in 1845 or 1854. Probably the export to Europe, prior to 1861, was a dernier resort , to 
find a market for such surplus as remained after supplying the demand for China and the 
home consumption ; whatever it might fetch in excess of expenses of freight and sale being 
so much gained. 

*The publishers of “Poor's Manual of Railroads" have done us the kindness to furnish 
the following figures in connection with railway progress in India: 


1866... 

,...3,568 miles. 

1869... 


1872. 

.5,383 miles, 

1867... 

... 3,937 “ 

1870... 

... 4,833 “ 

1 873 . 

. 5,799 “ 

1868... 

...-4,017 “ 

1871... 

... 5, 0 78 “ 

1874 

.... 6,251 “ 


The Messrs. Poor say : “ The above mileage is as of December 31, for each year. The 
•report for 1875 b RS n °t been made; but up to June of that year, the reported miles opened 
were 6,273 ; projected and authorized, and yet to be constructed, 2,158 miles.” The “ Cot¬ 
ton Supply Association” was, from the beginning, quite as active in this direction as in 
•everything else necessary to assure the best returns from India. 











15 


u ^ ow case is widely different. The price of labor in India was increased by the 
•new piofit in Cotton-growing; but it is still very cheap, compared with the cheapest labor 
in our Cotton fields. But the greatest cheapening is in the cost of internal transportation, 
whereby the produce of the best lands, formerly too remote, now finds an accessible mar¬ 
ket. Gins, of improved make, have displaced the slow churka , and- packing presses are 
located at all important places. The Cotton culture itself, and plantation management, are 
greatly improved since i860. Taking all these great changes together, and not forgetting 
the transportation by steamers through the Suez canal, it is probably true that 4 pence per 
pound at Liverpool now would return to the average producer in India more than 5 
pence would have given him prior to 1855, or 5 pence in i860. 

“ So far we have considered only the production of India Cotton. On the other side, 
is the question hardly less important of its consumption. 

“Under the pressure of sore necessity in the Cotton famine, the toilers in the mills were 
grateful for any fibre that could employ the machinery and themselves. India Cotton, of 
the better sorts, was then used as it had never been before, and has never been since. By 
■experiment it was found that No. 30 yarn could be made of Surat Cotton unmixed. It was 
found, too, that Surat, of fair average staple, was worth only 12 '/% per cent, less than up¬ 
land American of equal grade and cleanliness, and often the two approximated by that dif¬ 
ference only in price. But this was true only under the hard necessity of those times. No 
sooner had American Cotton again come in fair supply than the difference widened rapidly. 
The master spinners could not afford to reduce the product of their machinery 15 to 20 per 
cent, even if the difference in cost was found in the difference in the price of the Cotton. 
And another power had arisen, with the return of the American staple, the Operative Spin¬ 
ner’s Unions. The operatives found that, in all stages of the work done by the piece, they 
lost by the use of the poorer staple, and they condemned, it. In recent years, by the un¬ 
written law or edict of the operatives, the use of Surat, or other short staple Cotton, has 
been prohibited to a large extent in many, if not most of the English mills, except for very 
coarse Work. Employment seems to have been accepted upon the condition, tacit or ex¬ 
pressed, that it should be used sparingly, if at all. The result of the combined objections 
to the use of India Cotton, when American can be had, appears in the following table, 
which states the number of bales of India Cotton imported to Great Britain; the number 
of bales and the per cent, of the import consumed there; the per cent, of India Cotton in 
the whole quantity (pounds) of all kinds consumed; and the per cent, of average yearly 
price of Fair Dhallorah (Surat) Cotton in comparison with middling upland (American) at 
Liverpool, in each of the last nine years : 

INDIA COTTON. 


Year. 

Imported to Great 
Britain. 

Bales. 

Consumed in Great 
Britain. 

Bales. 

Per cent, of Import 
consumed in Great 
Britain. 

Per cent, of India 
Cotton consumed in 
total of all. 

Per cent, value c 
Fair Dhallorah t 
Middling 
Uplands. 

1866 

1,847,760 

922,340 

50 

39 

77 

1867 

i, 5 ° 8 , 75 ° 

890,810 

59 

33 

80 

1868 

1,451,070 

801,290 

55 

30 

81 

1869 

1,496,410 

958,870 

64 

37 

80 

1870 

1,062,540 

708,260 

67 

25 

82 

1871 

i, 235>940 

53503 ° 

43 

17 

79 

1872 

1,288.120 

689,420 

54 

22 

7 i 

187.3 

1,068,690 

691,050 

65 

20 

69 

1874 

1,040,920 

671,380 

64 

20 

66 
























16 


“ Not until i8yo-’7i was a sufficient supply of American Cotton produced to increase 
its yearly surplus. Since American Cotton has become increasingly abundant in its pro¬ 
portion of the general supply, the relative price of Surat has fallen, and, strange to say, the 
proportion of Surat Cotton in the whole consumption has simultaneously diminished. Are 
we to infer that this*rule of change will continue, and that the more abundant and cheap 
American Cotton becomes, the less is the relative value of India Cotton, and the more it is 
rejected? If yes, this fact alone will answer your question. 

“ The greater part of Indian Cotton imported to Europe, in recent years, has been con¬ 
sumed by the mills of the continent, though their consumption of all kinds was much less 
than in England. There, too, and in countries where it has been most largely used, the 
operatives have, for the last two years, been rebelling against its use, and demanding Ame¬ 
rican staple. 

“ It seems then that Indian Cotton can be used in competition with American only at a 
price enough lower than that of the American, to cover—I. actual difference of loss in 
working; 2. loss in use of machinery; 3. higher wages to operatives, enough to overcome 
their actual loss and their prejudice; and, 4. the lesser market value of the goods pro¬ 
duced from it. 

“ Should American middling fall to 4pence to 6 pence, these differences against the 
Surat should carry that down to a price at least as low relatively as that in 1874, or two- 
thirds of the price, making the price of Fair Dhallorahs then 3 to 4 pence. 

“ Then the question would remain, can Cotton be produced profitably in India for a 
price equal to 3 or 4 pence at Liverpool ? 

“ Experience alone can make a decisive answer, and it must be the experience of seve¬ 
ral successive years, without the intervention of a year or two of higher prices, to renew 
the profit of Cotton growing in India. Assuming such abundant production of American 
Cotton as to hold the price of “ Middling” at Liverpool below 6 pence per pound, with 
probability that such abundance would be continued, it is but reasonable to suppose that 
the consumption of India Cotton would gradually diminish, and so depress its price, that, 
after a few years, its production would also diminish, giving place to other productions, and 
that its export to Europe would again be as formerly, but little if any more than the yearly 
surplus remaining after supplying home consumption and the trade to China, Japan, &c. 

“ It is significant that the Cotton mills recently built in India, and supplied with the best 
of English machinery, find it necessary to import there American Cotton to mix with the 
best native for the most profitable manufacture, and that an import duty, lately levied by 
the Governor General upon the foreign Cotton so imported, is the cause of energetic re¬ 
monstrance, as hindering, if not destroying, the prosperity of the new industry. 

“ Unable to make positive answer to your question, I have, as well as the time at my 
command would permit, grouped together such facts of the past and present, as seem to 
constitute the best basis for judgment, and leave them to carry their own inference.” 

As indicating another way of handling the question, we submit some ex¬ 
tracts from a private letter received by us from a gentleman well posted in 
Cotton matters: 

“ I will put the substance of your inquiry into another shape : If you can produce at 
least 5,000,000 of bales, with an average annual increase to cover the natural increase of 
consumption, the American Cotton will cause the import to Europe of Indian and minor 
kinds to be considerably reduced. 


17 


“If I make no mistake, the following were the averages for ten years— i 849*’50 to 
1 S58-’59 : American crop, 2,990,000 bales; import to Europe of all other kinds, 762,000 
bales, or 25 )/ z per cent, of your crop. Average price in Liverpool of N. O. Middlings, 5.64 
pence. Ihe averages for the two years 1872-73 and i 873-’74, were: American crop, 
4 ,° 5 °, 000 bales; imported to Europe of all other kinds, 2,567,000 bales, or 63 per cent, of 
your crop. Average price in Liverpool of N. O. Middlings, 9.08 pence. 

“ The deliveries in Europe, including Spain and the Baltic, for the last three seasons, 
1872 to 1875, taking into account that spinners held less Cotton 30th September 1875 than 
on 1st October 1874; or more correctly expressed, the consumption has amounted, on an 
average, to 5,520,000 bales, which added to American consumption, 1,200,000 bales, gives 
6,720,000 bales; so that even if your crop reaches 5,000,000 bales, we should still require 
1,720,000 bales of other sorts, and this without taking into account that, on an average, 
there must be henceforth some increase of consumption. 

“ 1 do not think it would be of any use now to refer to prices before i 847-’50, when Mid¬ 
dling Orleans was often worth 4 pence, sometimes less, and seldom worth more than 5 pence, 
except in periods of great excitement; for it would appear from the foregoing, that a price 
(average price) of about 5^$ pence for Middling Orleans would do your business; but I do 
not mean to say that such conclusions can be relied upon. However, for some time since, 
when Middling American was to be had at 6 ^ and 6)4 pence, laid down in Liverpool, 
the question was put, whether such a low price, equal to about 4 )4 for fair Surats, would, 
if it continued, cause planting in India to be reduced? I am not sure of it, but some Cot¬ 
ton would be held back in India and some of the minor countries. Holding back, of 
course, can only be temporary. There is a long way from 6)4 or 6 )( to, say, 5 

The following extract we take from a letter to us from one of the oldest 
Cotton houses in Liverpool: 

“Both masters and men prefer working American Cotton to Indian, and the extent of 
consumption of either seems to be very much a question of the relative value which one 
bears to the other. We have heard a spinner estimate the intrinsic difference of value, be¬ 
tween American and Indian, as one-third against Indian, chiefly from the staple being so 
much cut, and the waste therefore greater. Some manufacturers say that, for some pur¬ 
pose^ they must have Indian Cotton, as it takes the dye much better, such as for the goods 
they call ‘ Turkey red.’ The introduction of better machinery, and better seed, in some 
districts, have improved the Indian supplies; and while there is nothing now so fine as 
there used to be, there is nothing so low, and, on the whole, the supply is more useable. 
Our supplies from America are treated much the same; so little fair Cotton comes that our 
circulars do not quote the price of fair American. Although our prices have fallen to 7 
pence for Middling Uplands, the consumption of Indian Cotton, for the past four years, as 
you will see in the weekly averages, gives for Indian Cotton about one third of American.” 

The information furnished by the foregoing extracts should so enlarge 
the view of our friends in the Cotton country, as to not only inspire a feel¬ 
ing of hopefulness, but a resolution to make the advantage they hold an ab¬ 
solute certainty for all time to come. 

2 


18 


4-—The Cotton manufacture, and especially in the 

South. 

4 

To say nothing of the demand consequent upon increase of population, 
as the people throughout the world of lesser civilization become, through 
trade, better acquainted with those who are in its full enjoyment, the con¬ 
sumption of Cotton will continue to advance. The figures, showing the con¬ 
sumption of the Cotton of commerce, have heretofore been furnished by M. 
Ott-Trumpler, of Zurich, for Europe; and the “ Commercial and Finan¬ 
cial Chronicle ,” of New York, for America. . M. Ott-Trumpler, being now 
in his 74th year, the labor of collecting the material for his reports became 
so onerous, that he felt compelled to relinquish the work; besides, others had 
undertaken it on their own account, and did it well. Ellison & Co., of 
Liverpool, will hereafter present these results. In their October Report we 
find as follows, to which we give our fullest assent, and share the regret 
expressed : “ There is no publication connected with the Cotton trade which 
has, for so many years past, been looked forward to with so much interest as 
the Annual Circular issued by M. Ott-Trumpler, of Zurich. As a repertory 
of facts the report w T as invaluable, while its remarks on the condition and 
prospects of the trade were so uniformly well considered and impartial, that 
they were perused with the keenest interest,,and accepted with the most 
complete confidence by a very wide circle of readers on the continent, in this 
country and in the United States. It was with regret, therefore, that in a 
previous report we announced that M. Ott-Trumpler had decided to discon¬ 
tinue the publication of his Annual Circular.” 

The following figures will exhibit at a glance the consumption by the 
mills of America and Europe during the last five years, as derived from the 
above-mentioned sources: 


YEARS. 

United States. 

Bales. 

Great Britain. 

Bales. 

Continent. 

Bales. 

1871 - - 

1,019,446 

3,114,780 

2,365,000 

00 

1,137,540 

3,265,620 

1,981,000 

1873 - - 1 

1,251,127 

3»l83,7IO 

2,193,000 

1874 - - 

1,222,913 

3,248,120 

2,369,000 

1875 - - 

1,242,080 

3, io 5, I2 ° 

2,341,000 












19 


The total spindles of the United States, in 1875, were 9,539,364, as 
against 7,114,000 in 1870; of Great Britain, 37,515,000 in 1874, as against 
34,695,000 in 1870; the estimate for the Continent is 18,640,000. Our Cot¬ 
ton circular of last winter shows in detail the American and English Cotton 
manufacture; hence, it is needless here to do more than present these totals. 

This question has undoubtedly occurred often to persons at all thoughtful: 
As the Cotton States produce the bulk of the Cotton needed by the world, 
why should they not manufacture all they grow ? When the whole popu¬ 
lation of this country, extending as it does now from ocean to ocean, is no 
larger than that of France, and is located in a latitude blessed generally 
with both a favorable climate and most diversified resources, mineral as well 
as agricultural, the feeling naturally begotten of such surroundings is inde¬ 
pendence, and the habit extravagance. The struggle for life incident to 
compact populations does not operate; hence, a higher cost of production 
where manufactures are attempted, and a resort to tariffs for protection againt 
the cheaper labor abroad. The manufactures inaugurated in this country 
are mainly confined to New England, its natural resources being poor as 
•compared with the rest of the country, and the habits of its people, in con¬ 
sequence, enabling them to deal better with the economies necessary to be 
observed in such enterprises. On the 1st of July, 1875, there were in the 
United States, 875 establishments engaged in the Cotton manufacture, of 
which 516 were situated in New England. The South now is poor, and 
compelled to study the value of economies. 

Looked at in the abstract, and with reference to the question of material pros¬ 
perity, it was not wise in New England to work for the destruction of negro 
slavery in the South. As England had so much money involved, not only 
in the Cotton manufacture, but in the subjugation of India, the great com¬ 
peting Cotton field, if one did not know better, he would have supposed that 
the whole emancipation scheme on their part was commercial rather than 
philanthropical. The history of the opium trade between British India and 
China certainly gives strong color to the propriety of such a belief. The 
loss of her slave property in the West India possessions was the merest bag¬ 
atelle compared with the destruction of that ugly competitor—Cotton pro¬ 
duction, and the growing Cotton manufacture, in the United States; indeed, 
we have seen people uncharitable enough to intimate that England used the 
peculiar fanatical turn of the religious mind of New England to deal the 
most effective blow. But the work was done; and we now have only to 
deal with the consequences. And what is the main point? The energy 
and enterprise which enabled the South, in little more than half a century, 
to supply over seventy-five per cent, of the world’s demand for Cotton, are no 
huger confined to that channel While it is true that our Cotton crops show 
now an aggregate as large as those grown before the war, their production 


20 


has been accomplished in a way altogether different from that prevailing 
then. Single minds then directed large bodies of laborers; now the work 
is too often done “ on shares.” The crop is made up more from an aggregate 
of small contributions than of large bulks from single plantations; and 
nothing demonstrates better the excellent management observed by the 
men who instructed these laborers than the uniformity of quality and con¬ 
dition, in respect of commercial requirements, resulting from this apparent 
chaos of producers. We have, therefore, ceased to be, in the South, an ag¬ 
ricultural people by distinction, and are ready, to the extent of our ability > 
to devote the intelligence that gave our section character to something in 
addition to the business of the production of crude material, to indeed, trade 
and manufactures both; and it is desirable to know what we may reasona¬ 
bly count upon in the future in this direction. 

Some years before the war, the Hon. Charles T. James, of Rhode Is¬ 
land, prepared a paper on Cotton and Cotton manufactures at the South. 
In this paper, and it is by far the most admirable we have ever seen on the 
subject, he presented the advantages of our position with a strength of state¬ 
ment, and a copiousness of illustration, that would have secured a response 
from any other people than those who enjoyed as much worldly comfort as 
the planters of the South. Mr. James urged the planter to invest his sur¬ 
plus in this way. He showed, in substance, that water, the cheapest motive 
power, was abundant everywhere with us, and not often locked by ice; that 
the poorer white people among us would furnish, by proper instruction, 
which could be had, the best hands, and be glad to do it, as it would enable 
them to live better; that the negro labor unfit for the field could be made 
available for the work requiring less skill; that the manufacturer could save 
to the producer all the expense of bagging, ties, press, &c., and to himself 
all commissions, transportation, &c., by receiving it “ in the seed” at the door 
of his mill; that capital invested in manufactures, managed with common 
prudence, always paid better than in the production of the crude material; 
that the eligible ports along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and the Missis¬ 
sippi river, would enable the manufacturer, at small cost for transportation, 
to reach any market, foreign or domestic; that this distribution of capital, 
between production of the raw material and manufactured goods, would 
prove an effectual check to over-production of the staple; in fact, every 
point of advantage that the circumstances would authorize a practical mind 
to recommend. Stern necessity has made willing ears; and Mr. James’s 
words, if uttered now instead of then, would not have been in vain to his 
hearers. But, how stands the case ? The men with us who before the war 
possessed wealth were generally left prostrate. It was the settled policy of 
Rome, when a people succumbed to its invincible legions, to induce them, 
by humane treatment and just government, to feel an honest pride in the 


21 


assertion, “ I am a Roman citizen.” This example was forgotten in the 
United States, albeit the North are Christians and they were pagans. The 
hideous crime of negro suffrage was committed, and that the men of the 
South might have their sufferings made the more exquisite, this mass of igno¬ 
rance was managed by creatures, without character other than should bring 
the blush to a white face, backed by the cruel power of an unthinking gov¬ 
ernment. Those who represented in the North the capital invested in Cot¬ 
ton manufactures, could not but see that the sceptre promised to pass from 
their hands as soon as things became so settled in the South that the advan¬ 
tages described by Mr. James might operate. While they doubtless enter¬ 
tained a sentimental regard for the negro, they felt little disposed to trans¬ 
fer any of their capital to this tempting field, when it might be taxed out of 
existence by legislatures composed of negroes and carpet-baggers. Notwith¬ 
standing the lack of aid, through bad government, from the indisposition of 
outside capital to venture much in this way in the Southern States, it is a 
source of great gratification to us to be able to present a statement like the 
following, from the Commercial and Financial Chronicle, showing the magni¬ 
tude of this interest there. It is no mean comment upon the energy of its 
people, with any sort of a showing, the work being mainly their own : 


STATES. 

No. of 
Mills. 

Number of 
Spindles. 

Average size of 
Yarn. 

Average Run¬ 
ning Time. 

Average con¬ 
sumption per 
Spindle. 

Quantity con¬ 
sumed. 




No. 

Weeks. 

Lbs. 

Bales. 

Alabama, . . 

14 

58,480 

12.75 

45-50 

II4.5 1 

14,561 

Arkansas, . 

2 

1,781 

10.38 

46.34 

73-56 

285 

Georgia, . . 

47 

13 1 .340 

12.87 

46.35 

177-39 

50,214 

Louisiana,. . 

3 

2,260 

8.50 

50. 

3i5-5o 

L537 

Mississippi, 

9 

18,256 

11.07 

46. 

110.60 

4,291 

North Carolina, 

3i 

54,500 

11.28 

43-97 

12172 

14,428 

South Carolina, 

18 

70,282 

14. 

5i-i5 

137-57 

19,945 

Tennessee, 

40 

55,384 

11.66 

43-17 

121.85 

14,443 

Texas, . . . 

2 

5,7oo 

12. 

50-63 

172.34 

2,117 

Virginia, . . 

9 

54,624 

15.22 

51-63 

115-85 

11,985 

Total, . 

175 

452,607 

— 

— 

— 

133,806 

















22 


The following figures, from the same source, indicate the steady growth of 
this interest in the South for several years past: 


* 

Years. 

1870. 

1871. 

00 

1873- 

1874. 


Bales. 

Bales. 

Bales. 

Bales." 

Bales. 

Cotton taken by Southern mills, 

90,000 

91,240 

120,000 

137,662 

128,526 


These totals include the takings of the 6 mills in Kentucky and Missouri, 
which, in 1875, reached 11,273 bales. The decline in 1874 is explained by 
the panic. 

The average size of yarn used in the North is about No. 28; in the 
South, about No. 12. With the growing disposition of the South to take 
care of itself, in respect of the coarser Cotton fabrics, the North, relieved of 
this demand, must find an outlet elsewhere, or give its whole attention to 
finer goods. The North works to a great disadvantage, as a competitor with 
England, inasmuch as its range in yarn, as many mills as it has, is only from 
5 to 40, while the English is from 5 to 900 ! It is obvious that, for a general 
trade, the variety must be as great as possible. There are, liowever, coun¬ 
tries, like China, for instance, where the North can beat England on the 
same lines of goods, the difference in its favor being a cent a pound on the 
raw material; but on these same lines (coarse goods and yarns) the South¬ 
ern factories can beat the North worse than it beats England. On these 
goods our manufacturers will have to trade, outside of the domestic demand, 
until better government brings them money and skill enough to authorize 
the production of a greater variety. In the matter of its home trade, the 
North suffers again; for its goods are placed through intermediate agencies, 
and these agencies absorb “the lion’s share” of the profits. This used to 
be the custom in connection with the sale of manufactured tobacco from: 
Virginia, but this piece of machinery has been almost entirely dispensed 
with, the manufacturer dealing now directly with the jobber and retailer. 
We can understand the embarrassment of a New England manufacturer, 
subject, as he is, to a power as overwhelming as the resources of a Stewart. 
It is a question, in few words, with the mill-owners there, whether, through 
their influence, politically, they will continue to permit this interest in the 
South to be kept cramped, or correcting these evils, accept the immense 
advantages it offers, transfer their capital to that quarter, ask for a tariff of 
revenue instead of protection, and transact their business, at home and 
abroad, as they please. 











23 


5-—Cotton Production in the South; and what is 
needed to make it Profitable. 

What is submitted under the foregoing heads indicates the standing of 
our Cotton production. Our labor is vain if it does not show that we may 
again enjoy a practical monopoly of this crop. The area on which Cotton 
can be grown with 'profit is large enough to bring all that is needed at our 
hands, provided it is made to do its work faithfully. Is this done? Our 
average yield of lint Cotton is less than half a bale to the acre. Mr. Dodge 
has been good enough to prepare for us the following table, showing the av¬ 
erage product of lint Cotton per acre, since 1870, in the several Cotton 
growing States: 


States. 

i8 75 . 

1874. 

1873- 

1872. 

1871. 

1870. 


Ll>s. 

Lbs. 

Lbs. 

Lbs. 

Lbs. 

Lbs. 

North Carolina. 

156 

172 

159 

170 

H3 

175 

South Carolina. 

I40 

194 

188 

182 

117 

170 

Georgia ... ... . 

126 

136 

184 

l8o 

120 

173 

Florida. 

115 

IOO 

126 

125 

00 

Ln 

165 

Alabama... . 

158 

139 

15* 

167 

130 

155 

Mississippi. 

212 

129 

172 

200 

i5° 

205 

Louisiana. 

239 

173 

180 

215 

150 

252 

Texas. 

269 

170 

221 

220 

180 

275 

Arkansas. 

239 

108 

194 

170 

215 

255 

Tennessee. . 

142 

H3 

I 9 0 

I90 

180 

190 

Average. 

l 179.6 

146.4 

176.5 

181.9 

147.0 

201.5 


Mr. Dodge observes, in connection with the above, “ These averages are 
undoubtedly nearer correct than any from private guesses, so frequently 
published ; but they may not be exactly true. Those of the South-west, in 
1875, I think are too high, as fuller and corrected returns will probably 
show.” Is such a result per acre good work ? Let us see. 

Col. Lockett, of Georgia, in 1869, by superior cultivation and manuring, 
produced on 6i% acres of chocolate colored limestone land, an average of 
1,4201 pounds of lint cotton , or THREE BALES TO THE ACRE. 

The following table shows the population of the Cotton States, and those 
engaged iu agriculture, as per Census of 1870: 







































24 


State. 

White. 

Negro. 

Population en¬ 
gaged in Agriculture. 

Alabama. 

521,384 

475 > 5 10 

291,628 

Arkansas.'..... 

362,115 

122,169 

109,310 

Florida. 

96,057 

91,689 

42,492 

Georgia „. 

638,926 

545 ,H 2 

336,145 

Louisiana. 

362,065 

364,210 

141,467 

Mississippi. 

382,896 

444,201 

257,199 

North Carolina.... 

678,470 

39L650 

269,238 

South Carolina.... 

289,667 

415,814 

206,654 

Tennessee . 

936,119 

322,331 

267,020 

Texas. 

564,700 

253,475 

166,753 

% 

4 , 832,399 

3,426,191 

2,089,906 

It has been intimated that, for party purposes, the 

census in the Southern 


States was made to show the negro population in full; but not the white. 
It was taken in mid-summer, when the whites who could afford to be absent 
from home in pursuit of health, were unable to answer to their names. 
But this circumstance affects more the city than the country, and hence the 
third column above may be taken as practically representing the agricultu¬ 
ral community of the States in question. 

We fully appreciate what is meant by the “labor question" in the Cotton 
States. Those who understand the negro know that he is efficient, as a 
laborer, only in proportion as his actions are subject to the management of 
the white man. The conduct of our rulers, since the war, was intended to 
make him in the highest degree unmanageable, as far as those who needed 
his services were concerned. He was made a sovereign (!) and therefore a 
repository of law-making power. We are full of hope that this outside 
pressure on him will be withdrawn, in all quarters, before long, and that 
he will settle down on the basis of manageable work. Whether the notion 
of his own importance (vanity is ever the most prominent characteristic 
of inferior peoples), will become tempered, time only can answer; we think 
it .will. With things in the chaotic condition they have been for so long, no 
settled policy, of course, could be adopted in the matter of labor, looking 
to the best return of profit to the employer and the employed. But we believe 
that the time has come when this question should be systematically consid¬ 
ered throughout the South, and the compact organization presented by the 
Grange should greatly facilitate a wholesome conclusion. In the July (1875) 
report of the Department of Agriculture , is a section devoted to the meth¬ 
ods observed throughout the United States in arranging with farm laborers. 
The tendency of the negro in the Cotton country is shown by the following: 
“ The effort to supercede the share system by substituting hired labor is 












25 


resisted by the inveterate prejudices of the freedmen, who desire to be 
masters of their own time, and hence prefer the share-contract system, 
which leaves them at their own disposal.” Of the large plantations, not a 
few went into.the Freedman’s Bureau, or the Bankrupt Court. These estates 
are held by aliens, for the most part, or been squatted upon by negroes. 
Those still in the hands of owners have too much to be tenanted out “ on 
shares, from lack of ability to run them otherwise. The smaller estates, 
where white men; the proprietors, perform the larger portion of the labor, 
we look to, with great hopes, for the early and more general adoption 
of the methods of improved agriculture, when the negro “on shares,” 
through his faculty of imitation, will be brought in time to the maximum 
of his ability, working for himself. But improved agriculture is impossible 
so long as we insist upon the Cotton field bearing the entire expense of the 
establishment. If, as Col. Lockett has shown, it is possible to get as much 
Cotton from seven acres as from forty, it is absurd for us to provide labor 
and teams for the thirty-three acres difference. We would then get the 
full value of the fertilizers we bought, for we would do as Col. Lockett did, 
use them in conjunction with our domestic manures, and so present to the 
crop a perfect manure. Our attention thus concentrated on an area we 
could faithfully work, the Cotton crop would become what it ought to be, 
our money crop. We would then have time to make such a kitchen-garden 
as would supply all the vegetables needed by the household ; to plant out 
some fruit trees, to furnish dessert for our tables, and the surplus dried, to 
put money in our pockets from the city people who need these things in 
winter; to raise hogs and fowls; to grow corn and forage enough for our 
stock, and wheat enough to supply at least the demands of our families. 
These things are possible; yea, practiced in those sections where thrift 
abounds. Will not every man who reads this book, and who has neglected 
to take advantage of these things, at once change his way of management? 
We were not created to be mere drudges, but to enjoy rationally the fruits 
of our labors. Is this possible on htfdf a bale to the acre, and that half-bale 
required to support the whole farm? Merchants and manufacturers do not 
work in this way. Their heads were made for service, and they use them. 
Does the agricultural calling require less thought? Every man wants to 
lay up something for the children given him ; certainly enough to take care 
of them until they can take care of themselves. How can he do this if he 
continues to go in debt a year ahead for the supplies he should produce for 
himself? Conducting his affairs in the manner we have indicated, and it is 
so entirely practicable, he would not only gain for himself an easy mind, 
but ceasing his dependence upon the North and West, he would secure 
better government. The desire for custom would soon set to flowing “ the 
milk of human kindness,” and his patronage might take the shape of such 


26 


luxuries as a reasonable man should enjoy. No North nor West should-' 
FURNISH A POUND OF PORK, BUSHEL OF CORN, QR POUND OF HAY. The Lord 
has made full provision for us; are we men if we cannot make it avail¬ 
able? 

Considering the fact that we have repeatedly, of late years, produced a 
crop of 4,000,000 bales and upwards, which is as*large a figure as was 
reached before the war, it might appear that what we urge has little founda¬ 
tion in fact; but, while such crops have been grown, where is the surplus 
the planter should have enjoyed from such a result? In the pockets of the 
North and West; because our people have raised only Cotton, and bought all 
the supplies they should have produced in addition. So, while the planter 
before the war made on his own place nearly everything his people needed, 
and consequently grew rich, our people remain as poor as ever; at least it is 
so claimed. 

As to cultivation. Just here we will present an extract from the report 
of Rivett- Carnac, Cotton Commissioner for the Central Provinces and the 
Perars, India , (Bombay, 1869.) on the comparison between the India yield 
and American yield of lint Cotton per acre: 

“ The out-turn per acre has been taken at 80 pounds of clean Cotton in 
the best Cotton-growing tracts; at 50 pounds where the plant is not so suc¬ 
cessful ; and at these rates the out-turn for 1868 would be about 2,297,500 
bales of 400 pounds each. Deducting the exports, 1,676,000 bales, and 
there remains a balance of 621,600 bales for consumption in the country. 
The quantity retained for home consumption may appear small, being, if the 
population of India is taken at about 200,000,000, about one pound four ounces 
per head ; or taking into account the cloth and yarns imported, the total 
weight of Cotton to each inhabitant would be about two pounds and five 
ounces. This may appear little, but the pair of dhotees , or loin cloths, 
which form the chief part of the man’s dress, weigh, on an average, rather 
less than two pounds, or say, one pound each; and the generality of the 
people cannot afford to purchase more than one pair a year; the poorer 
classes wear one set for several years, according to their means. The women’s 
dress is much lighter; and as for the children, who form no small body in. 
the above estimate of the population, a very large proportion of them 
hardly know clothes at all. Under all these circumstances, I doubt the 
above estimate being found very wide of the mark. * * * Of course, 

as compared with the United States, the small out-turn of India to the 
large acreage is noticeable. But, it will be remembered that, besides 
many other advantages, the lands of the States are, comparatively speaking, 
composed of ‘virgin soil,’ and new to Cotton, while for thousands of years 
the Indian districts have been worked with this crop. Indeed, I find that 
in some of the older districts of the United States, the out-turn per acre is 


27 


given as low as 112 pounds, as in the case of Florida, and this is not more 
than could be picked from a good field in the Valley of the Poornah in the 
Berars, whilst in a new country, Texas, for instance, the yield is put as 
high as.from 337 to 400 pounds of clean Cotton.” 

The interest manifested by the Indian government in the matter of Cot¬ 
ton production, does not abate. The ryot is encouraged in many ways to 
better work ; and he has been taught much in the matter of seed and culti¬ 
vation. The late David Dickson, of Georgia, (and the Southern country, 
at any time, has produced few better or more useful men,) was consulted on 
both points; and they have given heed to his advice. It has been found 
that better results are obtained from a continuous selection of seed from 
the native varieties, than from exotic seed. Great attention is also being 
given to the matter of manures. The old style (quoting from the same 
authority), was as follows : 

“ A good Cotton-growing tract always means one free of all jungle; and 
the scarcity of fire-wood thereby occasioned, obliges the people to burn in 
large quantities the cow dung, which might otherwise with advantage be 
put down o'n the fields. There is, indeed, generally a good field in the 
village, close to the village site, and boasting of the name of “Kari ” field, 
for which the head man of the village manages to save a little manure, and 
which is well known for its excellent crop. And perhaps it has a well in 
it; and a small patch is irrigated, and a garden crop is raised, and for such 
a patch a certain quantity of manure will always be spared. But, as a 
rule, it is only in such cases that manure can be used, although before the 
sowing season the most careful cultivators will be seen spreading the sweep¬ 
ings of their threshing floors over the fields. Moreover a great prejudice 
(whether rightly or wrongly I cannot say, until further experiments shall 
have decided the case) exists against using manure in any considerable 
quantity. The cultivators will tell you that manure with water—as, for 
instance, in the case of garden cultivation,—does excellently, and with a 
good rainfall, say they, its effects are excellent; but should the rainfall be 
scant, the manure will do more harm than good; it will excite the plant 
and drive it to wood, and the cultivator is likely to find a grand crop of 
Cotton bushes with no Cotton, as the manure, without sufficient rain, burns 
up the plants altogether. All these reasons are urged against manuring 
the Cotton lands, and they are difficulties which, I trust, with some little 
trouble, may be overcome.” When Mr. Dickson was able, by selection of 
seed, faithful ploughing and fine cultivation otherwise, and liberal fertil¬ 
izing, to gather as much as 4,200 pounds seed Cotton to the acre, the India 
folks at once set on foot experiments, which they are now conducting. The 
fertilizers were sent out from England by the “ Cotton Supply Association.” 
In our own Cotton country, when considering concentrated manures, we have 
given more attention to their action in individual cases, than to what has been. 


28 


accomplished on the general crop. In the absence of manageable labor, 
and an adequate supply of farm stock, it is no insignificant benefit for a 
planter to have at his command a labor-saving resort like a chemical 
manure, so compact in bulk that a single wagon can carry to the field 
enough for several acres, and any child can apply it. Aside from the sav¬ 
ing of labor, it has been found to improve the length and quality of staple, 
and by bringing in the crop several weeks ahead, he is able to extend its 
growth to the very foot of the mountains, (as witness western North and 
South Carolina), and as far north as Nansemond and Southampton counties, 
Virginia. We learn that the staple now raised in North Carolina ranks 
with the best from the Gulf States. 

We cannot break off from old ways all at once; but we are untrue to our¬ 
selves and our children, if we do not make the trial, when our condition 
shows that the old ways are unprofitable. The course, to our mind, is 
plain: Plant only as much land in Cotton as you can cultivate and 

MANURE THOROUGHLY; AND RAISE ON YOUR OWN PLACE EVERYTHING THAT 

is needed to feed your family and stock. Such luxuries for the table 
as must needs be bought let them be provided for from your surplus butter, 
eggs, poultry and dried fruit. You will then find that, when your crop is 
sold, you will have a balance on the right side of your factor’s ledger, on 
which he would be glad to pay you interest (for the merchants and manu¬ 
facturers in town always need money to push their operations) until you are 
ready to use it in enhancing the value of your estate by improvements, or 
in “ giving a lift ” to a worthy son who has been made a man by the exam¬ 
ple of a father who knew how to make available what Providence had 
vouchsafed him. We are not ryots, but white men, invested by our Maker 
with the ability to be moderate in prosperity and courageous in adversity. 
Rivett-Carnac gives an amusing account of the behavior of the ryots, under 
the good fortune they enjoyed through the high prices realized during the 
Cotton famine. In ordinary times, the labor of the ryot, at the best, brought 
him only a fare of little else than rice, and a single pair of Cotton dhotees a 
year. When the big money came, instead of putting it in a shape to ren¬ 
der him valuable service in the future, should the times not continue so 
prosperous, he indulged in all manner of extravagances. He had his plough¬ 
shares and the tires of his cart wheels made of silver, loaded himself and 
his family with ornaments, bought the most elegant stuffs for his dhotees and 
the clothing of his household, and filled his festivals with costly display. 
He not only spent his living, but plunged into debt, pledging his crops at 
ruinous rates of interest; indeed, in proportion as his obligation to the 
money lender increased, in the same proportion he imagined his respectability 
to increase. In exceptional cases, he improved his cottage and other per¬ 
manent surroundings; but generally speaking, when Cotton began to de¬ 
cline, he assumed the condition of exceedingly modest living. 











































































|h& 








































































4 









* 





































































. 

I m I 

■ ■ . 













































































































Free Trade. —We present the following extract from a letter of the Hon. Reverdy 
Johnson, 24th January, 1876. As Mr. Johnson is an old whig, republican, and high-pro¬ 
tective tariff man, his language now is significant: 

“ Some years since I favored the doctrine of protection, but subsequent reflection and 
study have satisfied me of my error. In my present view, the doctrine is as unsound 
in principle as it must necessarily be injurious in practice. To tax a whole people, not for 
the purpose of raising revenue for the support of their government, but to enrich a few by 
enabling them to engage in a business which cannot support itself without injuring others, 
would seem to be so obviously wrong as to need no reasoning to demonstrate it. If to tax 
for their benefit is right and expedient, then it would be equally right and expedient to assist 
them by pecuniary bounties. And yet I suppose that no one would contend that to do this 
last would be proper, or even constitutional. The theory itself is at war with the enlight¬ 
ened civilization of the day, and cannot fail soon to become obsolete. Free trade is as su¬ 
perior to it as free government is to despotism.” 


“The Debt. —Congress may pass what financial bills it pleases,but resumption of specie 
payments can only come through Southern production or Northern bankruptcy. The Day- 
Book tells a great truth when it says: ‘The South, Southern production, so-called slavery, 
with the commerce connected with it, furnished over two-thirds of the capital and conse¬ 
quent prosperity of the country; and that source of national life abolished, dried up, blotted 
out, it would need about five hundred years of Northern production to fill the vacuum! 
Meanwhile, leaving out of view the social chaos and dying civilization of the South, there 
is not sufficient productive capacity in the North to pay the interest on the debt, even if, as 
in Europe, women worked in the fields, and they all lived on chestnuts, cabbage, soup, 
and horse-meat once a week !’ ” 









I 




f 

























J 























LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 






0 040 055 095 5 












































































































